Criminal Law Study Set 2
Quiz 6 :
Defenses to Criminal Liability
Brief summary of the case: Mr.H shot the president of Country U with the intention to murder him.Mr.H's defense lawyer did not argue that he had committed and planned the attack.Instead, his lawyer argued that Mr.H's action was a desire of an impaired mind.E Hospital treated Mr.H and the hospital submitted the evidence to the court in favor of Mr.H. E Hospital proposed the conditional release of Mr.H to the court.The jury also stated that Mr.H was not guilty because of his insanity.However, the government opposed the proposal of E Hospital.In July 2009, the court ordered the conditional release of Mr.H following the proposal of E Hospital. 1) Arguments in favor of E Hospital's proposal: E Hospital prepared a proposal for the conditional release of Mr.H.E Hospital stated that the conditional release would effectively safeguard Mr.H from becoming dangerous.Mr.H was in need of cure and not of punishment. Arguments against the proposal of E Hospital: The government opposed the proposal of E Hospital.The government argued that hospital is taking risk by underestimating the mental illness of Mr.H.They also argued that the mental illness of Mr.H would become dangerous to others and for himself. 2) Judge Mr.F imposed additional conditions on Mr.H for the following reasons: Mr.F, the judge stated that Mr.H must visit the volunteer organization and work there at least for three overnights successfully.Only then, the court will allow Mr.H to enjoy the extended social privileges after considering the hospital report. The work would help Mr.H to engage himself in a peaceful environment.Mr.F also stated that the hospital should send a letter to the court about the successful volunteerism of Mr.H. 3) Mr.X's opinion on the condition of the court: According to Mr.X, the condition of furlough by the court is fair, in the case of Mr.H.Furlough means granting temporary leave to the defendant for treatment or any other reason as per the directions of the court. The court ordered for the conditional release of Mr.H because he was mentally ill.He did not attack consciously.This conditional release will help Mr.H to engage in community activity and will provide significant therapeutic benefit.This will reduce the risk of further mental deterioration of Mr.H. 4) Mr.X's opinion on insanity defense: The insanity defense is also known as mental illness defense or mental disorder defense.The defendant will argue that he or she is not responsible for his or her own actions because of the periodic or constant psychiatric illness.This is an excuse provided by the defendant in the criminal trial court. According to Mr.X, in this case, the court adopts insanity defense correctly.It is because the hospital authorities prove the mental illness of Mr.H. Conclusion: There are many cases were the insanity defense is used to escape from crime and get release order from the court.However, Mr.H is not faking about his mental illness.E Hospital proves that Mr.H is insane.Hence, the court orders the conditional release of Mr.H.
Brief summary of the case: The court convicted Mr.O for murdering his own father.At the trial court, plaintiff appealed that he was not guilty by the motive of mental illness, under the rule of MN. On April 23 2000, Mr.O attended the Easter dinner along with his father.Mr.O fired three bullets in his father's chest while they were dining.Mr.O's father suffered from deadly wounds.After some time, Mr.O surrendered peacefully to the police.At the trial court, the plaintiff appealed for insanity release. 1) Elements involved in MN rule: There are two elements involved in the right or wrong test of MN rule: • The defendant should have suffered from the defect caused by disease of mind or mental illness. • At the time of act he or she would not know: 1.That it is a wrong act or 2.The quality and nature of the act 2) Facts pertaining to Mr.O's case: • The defendant suffered from mental illness: The defendant who is suffering from mental defect should prove his or her mental illness at the time of crime.Even if a mentally ill person is aware of his or acts, he or she is not aware that it is a wrongful act. • At the time of crime, he or she will not know that it is wrongful act: The defendant will not know that the act is wrongful and it attracts punishment.Some say that the defendant will not know that it is legally or morally wrong. • At the time of crime, he or she will not know the quality and nature of the act: The defendant will not have intellectual awareness about the nature and quality of the act.The defendant should understand the significance of his or her own action.The defendants could appeal under the MN rule, if they do not understand the significance and consequences of the act. 3) The court's arguments regarding its decision are as follows: The court argued about the mental illness of Mr.O at the time murder.The court appointed four doctors to provide an initial report of Mr.O's state of mind.All the four doctors concluded that Mr.O was not eligible for the MN rule, but there was no confirmation about the defect. However, the court ordered for a review of the report.In the second interview, two of the doctors concluded that Mr.O is eligible to appeal under the MN rule.It is because Mr.O was not conscious that his act was morally wrong. Mr.O had proved that he was suffering from mental illness at the time of murder.However, Mr.O failed to prove his ignorance about the nature or quality of his act. 4) Mr.X's opinion on Mr.O's insanity defense appeal: According to Mr.X, Mr.O is not eligible for the appeal of insanity defense under the MN rule.However, Mr.O was eligible, if he would have proved his mental illness and ignorance of the wrongful act. Mr.O surrendered himself to the court and proved that he was mentally ill at the time of murder.However, Mr.O was unable to prove that his mental illness made him ignorant about the wrongfulness of the act. 5) Mr.X's opinion on H Version of the facts in the case: According to Mr.X, the H Version of the case did not change the prior opinion of the case.In the H Version of the case, Mr.O states that he knew the pain of his father, but he did not want his father to die. Mr.O bought a silencer for the gun so that his children would not witness the crime.Therefore, Mr.O knew that killing his father is a wrong act, but he was unable to prove his mental illness in the court. Conclusion: In this case, Mr.O appealed for the insanity release, but he was unable to prove his insanity in the court.Mr.O appealed for insanity using the MN Rule stating that he did not know the wrongfulness of the act.The court sentenced life imprisonment and ordered the treatment for his mental illness.
Brief summary of the case: Mr.K is an eight-year-old boy.He was playing with his friend and Ms.A told them to leave the place.Ms.A believed that the place where the boys were playing was dangerous.The boys left place, only when Ms.A shouted on them to leave.Three days later, Mr.K went into Ms.A's house without her permission.He soiled her kitchen counter and placed the iron on her towel in the bathroom. Ms.A called the police.Mr.K's mother dealt with Mr.K about the mischief.Mr.K confessed that he was wrong, but his mother stated that Mr.K did not know the wrongfulness of the act.The court found Mr.K guilty.Mr.K appealed against the judgment.Hence, the court of appeals reversed judgment of trial court. 1) Determine whether decision of trial court or the Supreme Court was correct: The decision of Supreme Court was correct because Mr.K is an eight-year-old child.The behavior of Mr.K is not common among the young children but he did not know that it is legally wrong.The decision of Supreme Court found that Mr.K was innocent.Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed trial court's decision. 2) Determine whether Mr.K was conscious about his act: Mr.K went into the house of Ms.A without permission, and spoiled the kitchen and bathroom.However, the mischievous act satisfied Mr.K, but he did not know that it is a wrongful act. The facts that support the conclusion are as follows: The conclusion of this case is that Mr.K is not guilty.Mr.K is a small boy and he is immature to differentiate between good and bad behavior.Sufficient evidences proved Mr.K to become immature to understand the wrongfulness of the act. 3) Matter of appreciation by Mr.K: In this case, the court should not consider the matter of appreciation of Mr.K for his wrongful act.It is because Mr.K was immature and ignorantly appreciated the wrongful act.The court should not consider the appreciation done by Mr.K.Instead, the court should counsel him about the wrongful act. Conclusion: In this case, the defendant is an eight-year-old boy Mr.K is innocent and immature to determine the wrongfulness of the act.In the trial court, they found Mr.K as guilty, but he appealed in the Supreme Court.There was sufficient evidence that proved the incapacity of Mr.K and the court delivered the judgment in favor of Mr.K.